In the now immortal first installment of Stuff Conservatives Should Actually Like, I put forward the argument that perhaps some of us have been too harsh in our criticism of comedienne Tina Fey. The resulting attacks on my intelligence, character, private life and dress sense left my ego so bruised I was forced to console myself by re-reading the lofty and insightful praise of my work that pours ceaselessly into my spam filter. Just a couple of examples:

“All over the internet I am looking before I find a post so intelligent as yours! Do you know the cure for erectile dysfunction?”

“Thanks for your post and luckly to comment in your site! Have you at any time been on community revenue world-wide-web internet webpages and wondered how so a sizable size of males and females would probably possibly extremely appropriately be offering generally the extremely specific same performer?”

After weeks of such ego-healing balm, I am ready to return to the fray with my second offering: Dexter, Showtime’s killer serial about a serial killer who tortures and dismembers his victims for good rather than for evil. All the following comments apply only to the first season, the only one I’ve watched. There’ll be no important spoilers.

Too many in the conservative community (you know who you are) experience a swelling sense of righteousness when they announce to the world, “With all the violence and sex and filth out there, I don’t watch TV or go to the movies or read books anymore. I leave that to those queers and commies in Hollywood. Making paper dolls out of old TV Guides is enough culture for me, and ought to be enough for any true American!”

Stop saying stuff like that. It makes you sound like an idiot. Violence, sex and all-around filth are part and parcel of art because they’re part and parcel of life and the very stuff of drama. King Lear – which is the Sistine Chapel of literature – includes a scene where a man’s eyes are put out onstage. The Sistine Chapel – which, coincidentally, is the King Lear of painting – is rife with male and female nudity. And of course there’s the graphic rape scene in David Copperfield – okay, the magic act, not the novel, but still, you get the idea.

Dexter, then, is grotesquely violent—so much so that I turned it off twenty minutes into the first episode and did not return to it for months. I hate serial killer stories anyway and felt the brilliant novel Silence of the Lambs was pretty much the last one any of us needed.

But Dexter is different. It’s not really about serial killing at all. It’s about the nature of identity and morality. Dexter’s foster father, a cop named Harry, realized what little Dexter was becoming early in his childhood. So Harry taught his son a code to live by. He taught him how to act normal and blend in—and only to satisfy his urge to kill on those who are thoroughly evil. As a result, Dexter, who has almost no human feelings, merely pretends to care about others, and only kills when he has hunted down a fellow monster.

In other words, Dexter is very much like the rest of us and the best of us: a man who socializes his most powerful urges and who so thoroughly pretends to be a better person than he is that he actually is a better person than he is. This is the conservative view of man in a nutshell: deeply sinful, always imperfect and yet capable of self-control and responsible to the society around him. Leftists have tried to convince us that identity is about race or sex or sexuality, but for conservatives, it’s about beliefs and actions. We don’t care that Mexicans enter the country illegally, for instance, but we do care that Mexicans enter the country illegally. Leftists can’t comprehend this, but see racism where there is only a concern for the rule of law.

But Dexter’s vision of life is more complex than any one political position. The first season deals with the struggle between our codes of conduct and our inner freedom, the doubts that arise when we find out that those who taught us perfect behavior are not themselves perfect, and the ugly sadism of violence even when it is applied justly.

The violence does make this a hard show to watch and it’s not for everyone, I admit, but it’s a brilliant piece of work nonetheless and should be experienced by all conservatives who can stomach it.

Anyone who disagrees will be dismembered and eaten.

Click here to view the 75 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

75 Comments, 48 Threads

I have loved you from the first time I saw one of your videos. I subscribed to City Journal because of you. I love you. I have moved on some of my opinions because of you. You are a national intellectual treasure and should be recognized for it. I really mean all of that. I have sent your videos and writing to my friends. My next step is to read one of your books.

This is too much. Its bullsh$%. You have gone too far. Yes there are the examples of real life stuff that are in literature etc… But you have to READ it and where is the dismemberment in a great piece of literature? I know of a couple cases from the Bible but isn’t this just more in your face stuff from the “entertainment” sewerpipe? The sewerpipe that delivers this stuff – hbo etc… – is just TOO BIG and the VOLUME is too much. Oh yeah we really need THIS story to understand some moral issue. Give us and yourself a break. I guess your’e an artist. Go breathe some other type of air for a while.

I do not doubt that the storyline came AFTER the idea to make a story about some freak that likes to murder and dismember people. Sorry buddy just another sordid piece of Hollywood shite.

I completely disagree with you. If you need to tell a story like this – I am not an artist like you – but I am fairly confident that the point can be made just as well or better some other way.

I would love to hear your views on whether art imitates life or the opposite. I feel like their is a pretty good connection between what people take in and what some freaks end up doing.

The show IS based on literature. A series of books, in fact. I adore both the show and the books. And there is very, very little violence shown in Dexter. It’s not-as the author above says-about the violence. It’s about the battle. In fact, I think I had to watch into season 3 to actually see someone killed.

I disagree. DEXTER is a fantastic and well thought out show. Have you seen it? Everyperson has their own inner demons, ESPECILLY the self rightous people. we want to decry dexter cause he is a killer. but washingotn was a killer. Jefferson, was a killer. they killed the bad guys. do we decry them? of course not. but too many conservs like to be armchair quarterbacks and shout slogan like ‘freedom isnt free’ but not want to get dirty. what do you people think thoes slogans mean? it means SOMEBODY GETS KILLED. somebody dies. Dexter (and his father harry) understand what dex is from birth. the same thing we all are. killers. but he helps dex channel his into justice against thoes people who are really bad. anyone here throwing a fit on dexter tell me they wouldnt kill hitler or UBL or people like that if given the opportunity?

Off the top of my head, I can think of several instances of “ultra violence” in classic literature. Ever read Poe? I seem to recall that in the “Tell-Tale Heart” the main character murders and dismembers a house guest and then buries him under the floor of his house. Classic literature is full of heinous murders and horrendous maimings, going back at least as far as the ancient Greeks; check out Oedipus…doesn’t get much more effed up than that.

I consider myself conservative and I fully agree Dexter is an excellent show (so please don’t have me dismembered and eaten now – ok).

In art you often need to show things that are not generally decent. There is a difference between gratuitous depictions and ones that fit the story and lend weight and meaning to what is going on.

Yes Dexter has a horrifying theme but I love horror movies anyway. They break down the walls people in polite society hide behind and give the artist license to get at the meat of the subject (pun intended). Sure some of them are pretty worthless but often they are brilliant in ways that I don’t often hear people acknowledge.

In daily life people need control and the restraint to maintain civil society. In art sometimes the best way to open the door for a frank discussion is to break through that control and restraint and example our inner demons.

The good news about shows and such is that, though it may seem ‘in your face’ish, you never have to actually watch it.

Myself, I enjoy Dexter a lot. But then again, I didn’t find any horror in the show (well, besides the suspense. That always gets me)–and I wasn’t allowed to watch horror movies, anything above pg13 as a child, and only got to see a few r movies as a teen. Funny how that still didn’t condition me to be a delicate flower who can’t watch a guy get gutted in a video game or movie. On the other hand real images of people getting gutted twists my stomach like you wouldn’t believe. I guess for me graphic gory stories are like violent cartoons. Just stories with nothing more to them than the moral (if they have one at all).

There is a difference between reality and fantasy. For people like me, that is a very obvious thing. For those who can’t tell the difference, such things aren’t for them. And for those who can’t stomach the difference, such things are also not for them.

Klaven–great article. I still don’t like Tina Fey, butI might start trying to. As for Dexter–love it, and wish that season 4 didn’t end the way it did!

I watched the first season also. It was in syndication, so the version I saw was probably a little tamer. I agree that art can have a rough side to it. I just didn’t particularly like the show. Dexter was so fascinated by himself that it made me realize that I wasn’t. And didn’t you think the Ice Truck Killer’s revelation was just a little too precious? That said, your intelligence and fashion sense are kinda weak.

I wrote a 1,000 word post on Dexter a while back, and was roundly condemned for it. I then compounded my sins by adding a further 1,600+ word introduction to it. If you have the stamina, here is the link.

I hope to redeem myself as a hypergraphic commenter by leaving a link rather than pasting in the blog post, or worse, writing another 1,600 word comment on the link. I could do that…. But I won’t. No, I won’t.

Right, we all have to learn to blog together. Cooperation to create a etiquette is one sign of a civilization. Long posts are best formatted elsewhere if you have the resources and then a link provided. Only civil of you. Thanks for restraining yourself…and at least not eating us like Klavan.

First, the series is based on books by Jeffrey P. Lindsay. I liked the first book, and I have enjoyed the first four seasons mostly. I am fonder of some of the side characters – Det. Batista and Dexter’s sister – than I am of the main characters, and watching an entire season has a deleterious effect on my language due to the constant use of four-letter words by Dexter’s sister, but it’s a fun show. There is some graphic violence, but Dexter’s handiwork is usually cut away from.

I think you make a great point about the connection between Dexter and the bigger issue of the fallen nature of man. It seems that everyone on the show goes through cycles of sin and redemption, now that I stop to think about it.

Because nothing says “Conservative Values” like tales of a lovable serial killer, who’se just like you and me!

We can eagerly await further gems, such as “Jack the Ripper’s Bedtime Terror Tales for Boys and Girls”, or maybe “The H.H. Holmes’ Horror Hotel Comedy Hour!” (How will he bump off this week’s chosen victim? Ooooh, the suspense!) Or, maybe, “Dexter Does Genocide!” (Tons of fun, as Dexter lends his services to third-world countries. . . )

After all, it’s all in good fun, right? And isn’t art really about horror?

Yes, I know I’m reading a review in 2011 and should know what to expect (and yes, Klavan’s excellent) – but rather than saying something is excellent or terrible, perhaps we could account for taste by adding “not for everyone” and explain why not (rather than slamming the opinions of some of us who didn’t grow up with graphic violence and feel like it’s dragging the culture down).

So maybe Betty and I are in the minority. but hey — no need to go all Lefty and insult us. I know all about art pushing boundaries and mirroring reality and all that — I just don’t agree with it.

Girl – Yeah, Rob was a little snotty, but so was Betty. And Polichinello did make a pretty strange stretch.

You’re right that conservatism does respect individualism. I think that Klavan’s overall point is that conservatives don’t need to move in a pack, rejecting contemporary culture en masse. It’s risky, and you’re going to see a lot of garbage, but you can pick and choose from all the bulk entertainment and find some good stuff. (I wouldn’t put Dexter on the list, but that’s just because I didn’t like it.)

Oddly, I haven’t read the books, but I did see the first two seasons of Dexter when it was in reruns on HBO. I had an odd reaction to the whole thing. I liked the show, but ultimately stopped watching it. My wife continues to watch, whenever it’s on, first run on HBO.

The reason I stopped watching is complex. The show is very well-written, and intelligently plotted, even if the plots are a bit complex and at times stretch credulity. The cast is pretty much universally excellent, with a number of character actors doing brilliant jobs being background for the main characters, and those main characters are very well-acted also. There’s an Asian guy who plays one of the other Crime Scene techs, who’s just creepy, and the actor does such a good job that after a while you look at him and your skin crawls. So what was the point? Why didn’t I stick with the series?

After a while, it becomes what I call a “one-trick pony.” What that means is once you’ve absorbed the premise (he’s a serial killer who only murders people who “deserve” it) there’s not really much else to the show. It’s tempting for a while, and as I said the cast is marvelous, the writing quite good, but once you get past that, there wasn’t much there, for me.

That’s also why I didn’t go back and read the books. They’ll be more of the same, and somehow it just doesn’t appeal.

I’ve watched up through season 4. The show is certainly gripping. It still throws the occasional left wing pot shot, although they are purely throwaway lines, but they are few and easily forgotten amongst the rest of the show. Dexter’s creeping humanity is an interesting twist.

I have watched all of Dexter and find it fascinating. It does change a bit after season 1. The seasonal guest stars are wonderful and the opening is brilliant. How else would a serial killer’s breakfast look?

Haven’t seen the show, but will when I get the chance. I can almost guarantee it won’t shock or turn me off.

Then again I was the manager of an adult book store in a poor, violent neighborhood for 10 years. Between the movies and the crimes I’ve witnessed I could probably eat cold corn beef hash out of the can while walking though a 20 car pile up on the highway without feeling a twinge in my gut.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d drop the can right away to help them, and I wouldn’t let my nieces and nephews watch something gory. I know I’m twisted and otherwise waaaay outside the mainstream in a lot of ways, but I still know right from wrong. Like the old radio show, I to know what evil lurks in the hearts of men, mostly because I spent a decade having my fellow man telling me their darkest secrets. It’s left me deeply cynical but at the same time it’s made me see how precious honorable behavior actually is.

Oh, and as for the adult movies, I don’t watch them any more. It’s sort of like the old story where the dad makes his kid smoke the whole carton to make him stop smoking. Brother, I’ve smoked the whole carton and don’t want any more.

Klavan has sort of undercut himself here. If you object to illegal immigration (which we should), then you sort of have to object to murder, even if you’re murdering serial killers. Last I checked, it is illegal. Really, if Dexter wanted to reform his sinful nature, then he’d go get some help. I haven’t watched the show, so maybe he took this path, but I don’t see how any conservative could endorse the path he’s chosen outside of an utterly stateless world where there is no law.

Side note: I know this will sound unfair, but Anders Breivik listed Dexter as one of his favorite shows on his facebook page. As a conservative quite skeptical of immigration, I don’t want to tar Klavan or anyone else with that mass murderer, but I do think some caution should be taken when embracing a show that could have had a very disastrous influence in Norway.

While I have to admit to liking Dexter, there were certainly some of the usual insidious liberal additions, where you just had to swallow hard and try to move on. One of the first episodes has the REALLY bad guy being a completely Americanized and pro-American hispanic while the good victims were non-Americanized new arrivals. Another first season episode included the usual hackneyed religious-type-as-psycho-killer. Then one entire season was dedicated to an “innocent farm girl” getting kick-ass even with her “successful-businessmen-rapists.”

But I did really like the first season’s portrayal of Dexter and his girlfriend’s relationship as completely dysfunctional–a far more interesting, oddly original angle. That’s something I can . . . er . . . relate to. Later it turned to her “self-actualizing” as a woman by confronting her “white-male-abusive-former husband.” Yuck! And back to the formula . . . .

Mr. Klavan, you write that “this is the conservative view of man in a nutshell: deeply sinful, always imperfect and yet capable of self-control and responsible to the society around him.”

I would quibble with this definition in this respect: you mix the language of religion (“sinful”) and political philosophy (“responsible to the society around him”)to the detriment of both. Religion suffers because you have left out the supernatural (“Take up your cross and follow Me”) and political discourse falters in the quicksand of despair (“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”).

I understand that we live in a secular society where Art must straddle various positions with the sole exception of the missionary, but I submit Art satisfies only when it is not divorced from the Divine. And in this respect, Dexter leaves me cold.

Give Dexter a chance. If you look for it, the divine is there. In fact, Dexter is very Old Testament. As a young man, Dexter was given the Code of Harry. As long as he strictly follows this Code, he will be safe in the world while surrounded by his enemies, who would see him destroyed. In this case, the Miami Police, for whom and among whom he works every day. When Dexter tries to live outside the Code and follow the ways of his enemies, bad things happen. He suffers when he tries to be like his enemies the bad guys and when he tries to be like his enemies the good guys; when he tries to follow a false prophet he is hurt worst of all.

I’ll not go into the implications of his keeping drops of blood on thin wafers (ahem) of glass as trophies.

I have not seen the show but read and enjoyed the first novel. The second spent less time in his train of thought and more descriptions of dismemberment. Enough is enough: less is more. I never finished it.

I consider myself a liberal. I love the show. I see the Klavan’s point. I do not think poorly of conservative minded people for seeing the conservative message in the plot. No thoughtful person would. Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiots looking to use whatever they can to make their percieved “enemies” look unsavory. If I hold an ill opinion of some conservatives, it is based on their own actions, not their tastes in television entertainment.

Andrew, you certainly poked a stick in the ant nest with this one, and gave it a good shake around.

I think your comment about immigration was concise and powerful, “We don’t care that Mexicans enter the country illegally, for instance, but we do care that Mexicans enter the country illegally.” Chestertonian.

Could I ask, however, and I think this is the question a few of the “violent crap…” objectors have already answered to their satisfaction.

Could I ask, Can an artwork that does effectively raise important questions or tackle important themes be worthless because this value is drowned by the destructive or damaging nature of its content, style or format?

Extreme hypothetical: a porn movie that ends up with a pro-marriage message. (where’d that come from??)

I suspect the answer is yes, but at a different level for each individual. What goes too far for you is tolerable for me, perhaps, although societies do, and do need to, set a line somewhere, I suspect.

But I would be interested in hearing from a thinking artist on this question.

I, too, am a Dexter fan. I have seen the entire series. It is superbly done. Several things about it have stuck with me (pun intended). To play a little less-than-six-degrees-of-separation for creative context, the actor who plays Dexter also played a lead character in Six Feet Under (the gay funeral director brother), and the creative force behind Six Feet Under is now helming True Blood.

First, you clearly lay out the apparently paradoxical idea of a monster with a conscience. This conscience did not come to him naturally; his sociopathology seems to be congenital (from his biological father, as evidenced by his serial murderer brother). But his adopted father inculcated within him, but not within his brother, a strong moral code, which makes all the difference between them. This is a trenchant testimony to the ethical socializing effects, for good or ill, that parental instruction, or its lack or perversion, can have upon children. But Dexter failed where his father succeeded, and his protege remained a morally vacuous monster, so a further lesson is that success in such endeavors is never guaranteed. But perhaps she was just too old for the lessons to take; they could require transmission in the formative years.

Another point is that Dexter is not devoid of caring. He reveres his father, even though his father’s clay feet distress him, and he is deeply devoted to his sister, and comes to capital L Love his wife, and the children. He also has come to care about his colleagues, even though he knows that their job is to put people like him away, to the point that he was devastated when his evil protege killed a colleague who was close on his trail. Strangely (and interestingly) enough, there is an indication that that selfsame colleague had also engaged in the monster-murdering business.

A third theme is the distinction between the surface and the core. Dexter’s surface is benign, but his core is mixed (between congenital pathology and learned morality). There is another character who appears whose surface is also more than benign (in fact, it is laudable and praiseworthy), but his core is pure Freudian serial killer. He has embraced the Christian moral code, but – and this is the important part – only on the surface. Dexter has embraced his father’s moral code (if you MUST do harm, if your psychotic desires demand it, only do harm to harmers) in his core, and, once again, that makes all the difference between them.

If you cannot stomach the gore but can stand whizbang violence, another excellent show that teaches moral lessons is Burn Notice. And if you wish neither gore nor violence on your screen, but appreciate moral lessons, try Royal Pains.

Here’s my Hollywood fantasy. Every single movie goer, video renter, Netflix downloader, etc., etc., will start exercising real judgment on the morality of what they allow into their minds — and their kids’ minds.

In other words, the audience will start to educate ourselves. Then they will give a “price signal” to the industry by staying away from corrupt, decadent, exploitive, and ideologically evil trash. They might even set up a conservative movie site, with comments like the ones on this thread. Rotten Tomatoes is the liberal version. Nice, shiny, wholesome tomatoes could be the conservative one.

Yes, there’s a ton of violence in Shakespeare, but WS never left much doubt where he stood as a matter of morality and judgment. Nor did he assume that his audience consisted of morons and sociopaths. The tragedies are really morality plays, but not one-dimensional ones. I’m pretty sure that goes for all great literature.

If college kids are deliberately suckered into post-modern corruption of real values, you end up with ugly music, corrupt and decadent movies, and posters of mass murderers on the dorm walls.

And just out of curiosity: What’s a guess about the percentage of flicks and TV shows that conservatives “should like” compared to the ones we should despise and avoid? Just as a guess, I would think the ratio is about 10 to 1 on the sleazy side of the balance.

What other industry could get away with selling ten times as much trash as quality products? Cars? Homes? Even books?

Every age has its art forms. The Renaissance had da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Galileo, on and on. That came from pretty small Italian cities, and then revolutionized Europe in a positive way.

Until 1900 the arts and literature were fantastic. With the 20th century the story gets more and more mixed. How many great movies are there, really? How many even good ones?

Popular music used to be charming, cheerful, and humane. Today it’s ghetto chic, ugly, repetitive, overbearing, arrogant, threatening and ignorant.

If I buy a car that turns out to be a melon, I don’t make the same mistake twice. The entertainment industry expects hundreds of millions of people to pay cash for trash.

Dexter is not conservative, and neither is the objection to illegal immigration. A nation is not a random collection of whatever people legally come into the US. Should say, about five million Israelis in the event of total defeat by the Egyptians, make their way into the US … illegally, I would have no objection. Not because of legality.

But because Israelis would not change materially the ethnic, religious, cultural, linguistic, cuisine-related, traditions, history, and every thing else that makes America … America. America is, for better or worse, Anglo/Celtic/African, with the African being around 10-15%, and the Anglo-Celtic being everything else. Mexicans did not fight at Saratoga, or suffer at Valley Forge. George Washington did not speak Spanish. Andrew Jackson was not Catholic and Mestizo. There is nothing wrong with being Mexican. But Mexicans are Mexicans and not Americans. Mexico is not America, and vice versa. Mexicans have every right to preserve their historic culture, ethnic-racial balance, people, history, cuisine, traditions, and values. By making sure, say 100 million American Whites, or Nigerians, or Chinese, do not descend upon them and make Mexico into Lesser America, or Lesser Nigeria, or Lesser China.

Legalistic arguments serve no one. I object to mass Mexican immigration the same way Israelis object to mass Paletinian immigration — it unmakes my country and makes me a discriminated, fifth-class subhuman oppressed by the new, hostile majority.

Dexter is no conservative show either. A monster in a cage is still a monster. One that can always get out. You don’t fight evil by being evil one’s self. Exhibit A: Anders Breivik. His FAVORITE TV SHOW?

DEXTER.

[He also loved, Caprica, Tru Blood, and the Shield. Evidence compelling that Breivik was no conservative. A conservative wishes to CONSERVE. Protect, maintain, defend, the historic culture, cuisine, folkways, history, language, and ethnic balance of one's nation. Which is not just a random bunch of people dumped in there, legally or otherwise. Breivik was no conservative, no one wishing to preserve and conserve Norway would ... slaughter its people or children.]

Dexter is liberal trash. No wonder a nihilist, in love with death and destruction, socially inept, and wanting to be a “beautiful and dangerous monster desired by women” (see also the vampires of Tru Blood and Vic Mackey of the Shield) would love the character.

I would suggest you buy old DVDs of Greatest American Hero, written by a … real American hero, Stephen J. Cannell. Its the only … conservative thing to do. Don’t let that great man be forgotten. Meanwhile, forget Dexter.

No matter how hard they try, you just can’t escape the fact that there really are Monsters out there. And the worst of them all seem to have a firm handshake. Good teeth. And Perfect hair. They are your instant BFF. That is until you turn your back. One way to recognize them is, they are ALL registered Democrats.

Thank goodness he’s not real? The guy said he disliked the series and thought romanticizing it was a bad idea? What the freedom does that have to do with it being fiction? If I write a story about a Pedophile with a heart of gold would you run around saying, “It’s fiction! It’s fiction!” ?

I’ve been a big fan of ‘Dexter’ since it first aired. The dynamic Andrew describes, that Dexter is ” a man who socializes his most powerful urges and who so thoroughly pretends to be a better person than he is that he actually is a better person than he is” improves as with each season. He marries, raises children that are not his own and sires his own child. All while fighting his “Dark Passenger.” Andrew’s right, “This is the conservative view of man in a nutshell.”

Reading all these anti-Dexter posts shows a bunch of people who don’t really GET IT, because they choose to not get it! Dexter is an outstanding show because it is working on so many levels at once. For one, it’s a parody of tv COP shows that are about all these one dimensional people who fight crime non-stop until they get the bad guy and then all go out for a beer. Until Dexter, the only cop shows on tv that were lifelike were Andy of Mayberry and Barney Miller. At one point in the series, Dexter goes to a therepist to get help and he really gets help, until he reluctantly kills the guy because he is also a killer. Dexter is a reluctant vigilante and he reflects everyones frustration at the OJ verdict (or maybe Casey Anthony). We all have those 2 little guys standing on our shoulders whispering into our ears, “Do it, no one will know.” & “You know that is wrong, don’t do it.” The show is VERY CONSERVATIVE and is all about those liberal lawyers who demand rights for terrorists and get murderers aquitted on a technicality. Dexter makes you THINK! Liberals HATE when you think.

This is all highly problematic, morally and culturally. If you squint at it, you can sort of see redeeming features. But viewed open-eyed, the creators of the show are appealing to our lower instincts and messing with our heads.

well, keep up the recommendations. I’ve been really lucky following your advice.

um. fine with horrific violence. the greeks managed to turn incest, pedophilia, rape, patricide, matricide, slavery and madness into great art. I wouldn’t summarize a single opera plot in front of the children, and last I heard, it’s considered great art.

spouse says it sounds fascinating, from way back when. I skipped it, b/c he said he was interested in Mad Men, which, honestly, was the most horrifying show I’ve seen in ages. blockbuster has each season on disc.

Skip season 5. Trust me on this. There is hope that Season 6 will be a redemption, but avoid 5. It’s not conservative vs. liberal. It’s good writing vs. bad writing.

Dexter is one of those things that my red-diaper baby wife and I can share without getting into what’s conservative vs. liberal. If the central theme of Dexter is conservative then think of it as stealth conservatism. Don’t tell the liberals that it’s really conservative.

I think you are wonderful, Andrew. Your writing is pleasing and you are very funny. However, I’m a little old lady now, and I only watch things that make me happy – doesn’t sound like something that would do that. But keep writing and opining and showing up on PJTV where you’re a fave. I am going to introduce my book-devouring, oldest grandson to your young adult series though. Going off to watch you and Bill Whittle together. Nothing makes me happier!

I watched a couple of episodes of Dexter and enjoyed them thoroughly. I would have watched more but my wife doesn’t like violence except on old episodes of Sherlock Holmes. Dexter is evil but hates evil and therefore is a sympathetic figure. The people he wastes deserve everything they get. What’s the problem?

Who says that conservatives don’t like Dexter? The conservative movement contains within it many very different sub-groups united by little more than their rejection of progressivism. Not every conservative is religious, I’m more or less agnostic but agree with the philosophy of Burke, Hayek, Sowell, etc. and Dexter is my favorite show. Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure there are more than a few religious conservatives who enjoy Dexter too.

Great article, Andrew. Do you have troubles satisfying your lady friends? If so, just follow this link…

Just kidding. I have no intention of watching Dexter. I am one of those who doesn’t have a TV. Haven’t tried the paper dolls out of old TV guides (don’t have any of those either). I am reminded of the verse from the good book (which I don’t always follow but I should):

“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy–think about such things.”

““With all the violence and sex and filth out there, I don’t watch TV or go to the movies or read books anymore. I leave that to those queers and commies in Hollywood. Making paper dolls out of old TV Guides is enough culture for me, and ought to be enough for any true American!”

Funny that I also watched the first part of the 1st ever episode and I turned it off also and didn’t go back till I basically ran out of stuff to watch on Netflix. Then, I picked it up again and totally got sucked in. They did a good job making it seem like he was busted and gonna get caught for sure and then somehow he wiggles out of every tight spot.

I haven’t watched “Dexter” because we don’t have cable. We turned it off when we started having kids and stopped having time to watch a lot of TV, mainly to save money on something we weren’t using. Several friends that I know and respect love watching the show. I haven’t yet, because I am still trying to slog through 2 1/2 more seasons of “Lost” and other DVDs. My main concern when I heard about it is that the program would be calling evil good and good evil. I also don’t like watching grisly stuff. The original “CSI” sometimes made me a bit queasy.